> > > > As I mentioned in my original post, --with-module and
> > > > --with-module-dir seem to have some inconsistencies themselves
as
> > > > well. What is the behavior?
> > >
> > > Where are the inconsistencies, can you point those out?
> >
> > Here are some notes additions from my previous post.
> >
> > In fact, there appear to be some inconstancies, and certainly some
> > questions:
> >
> > > --with-openssl (must not have any directory after it,
> > > which isn't inline with what ./configure --help says).
> >
> > This just seems right-out broken...
>
> OpenSSL is a special beast, though I can't see so quickly where the
> message is generated.
>
> > > --with-zlib=/usr (this works - but what if I want to
> > > force the 64bit library version, in /usr/lib64?)
> >
> > This is seems to be related to this thread, specifically lib64.
>
> Yes, so it's not an inconsistency ;-)
>
> > > --with-bz2=/usr/lib64 (and this also works - which you
> > > would think it shouldn't, compared to the zlib above?)
> >
> > Just confusion... perhaps on my part, or inconsistencies in the way
> > ./configure works.
>
> If it works it is because we fall back to the default dir after this,
so
> it would fallback to /usr/lib and /usr/include.
>
> >
> > > And lastly, take these:
> > >
> > > --with-curl=/usr/lib64
>
> See above.
>
> > > --with-zlib-dir=/usr/lib64
> > >
> > > Both seem to work (so far). So what is the difference
> > > between a directive having the -dir suffix and not?
> >
> > Compare --with-zlib and --with-zlib-dir, per above. Things
sometimes
> > "work" (meaning there are no obvious errors) and sometimes not; so
how
> > should the two be used? What does the suffix -dir mean and how
should
> > it be used?
>
> zlib-dir is odd indeed, it will override the dir from --with-zlib. No
> clue why :)
>
> > Agreed. ./configure should 1) have defaults of lib's locations 2)
use
> > system linker variables and most importantly 3) allow specific
> > directories to be specified during ./configure time.
>
> 1, sure, we do that. Not sure what you mean by 2) and 3) i don't agree
For #2, per Robert Silva's post:
"For #2, I believe he is referring to searching LD_LIBRARY_PATH
directories for libraries rather than hardcoding /lib everywhere (which
is how its done now)."
> with as it is common to specify the install root dir which we've been
> doing for ages.
Supplying the install root is fine, but as we've seen, it's not always
right and doesn't work. For a lib that's installed into /usr/lib64,
what's the install root?
> > > shot, but I'll need to have access to a linux running on 64bit
first
> > :)
> >
> > That's not a problem, see follow-up message.
>
> It wasn't a problem, more people already offered an account while you
> were sleeping ;-)
Hehe, fair enough - let me know if you need another account (this has
SuSE). How are things looking so far?
Thanks Derick,
H
